From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Kuba Piecuch <jpiecuch@google.com>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@meta.com>,
sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate ops.dequeue() semantics
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 23:22:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYpeG8ZUHKizSLAE@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aYo_NsAkKvyMoXYv@slm.duckdns.org>
On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 10:10:30AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 08:17:24PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Agreed. And just to be clear, for the purpose of triggering ops.dequeue(),
> > **all** direct dispatches from ops.select_cpu() should be consistently
> > ignored, including dispatches to user DSQs. I'll update this behavior in
> > the next version, because this one treats direct dispatches to user DSQs
> > from ops.select_cpu() as if the task is in the scheduler's custody, which
> > shouldn't be the case for consistency.
>
> I'm not sure about that. ops.select_cpu() doing direct dispatch is just a
> shortcut and should be treated like the same operation being done at the
> head of ops.enqueue(). That's what's happening semantically and I think we
> should stick with what's happening underneath - ie. make ops.select_cpu()'s
> shortcut the special case, not whether tasks in a user DSQ get ops.dequeue()
> or not.
Ok, what you're saying is that a direct dispatch from ops.select_cpu() is
just a shortcut for work that would otherwise happen at the head of
ops.enqueue().
So, while ops.select_cpu() itself is not "being in scheduler custody", the
semantic operation of dispatching a task is still the scheduler taking
control of the task. As a result, a dispatch to a user DSQ from
ops.select_cpu() should be treated the same as a dispatch to a user DSQ
from ops.enqueue() for the purpose of triggering ops.dequeue(). The fact
that this happens in ops.select_cpu() rather than ops.enqueue() is an
implementation detail, not a semantic boundary.
Under this interpretation, storing a task in BPF internal data structures
from ops.select_cpu() should not trigger ops.dequeue(), since the task has
not been put under scheduler control yet. However, dispatching a task to a
user DSQ, regardless of whether it happens from ops.select_cpu() or
ops.enqueue(), does explicitly place the task in the scheduler's custody.
If this matches what you mean, then I agree with this approach.
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-09 22:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-06 13:54 [PATCHSET v7] sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics Andrea Righi
2026-02-06 13:54 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Andrea Righi
2026-02-06 20:35 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-02-07 9:26 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-09 17:28 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-09 19:06 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-06 13:54 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
2026-02-06 20:10 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-02-07 9:16 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-08 5:11 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-02-08 9:02 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-08 10:26 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-08 13:55 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-08 17:59 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-02-08 20:08 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-09 10:20 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-09 15:00 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-02-09 15:43 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-09 17:23 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-09 19:17 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-09 20:10 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-09 22:22 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-02-10 0:42 ` Tejun Heo
2026-02-10 7:29 ` Andrea Righi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-02-10 21:26 [PATCHSET v8] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2026-02-10 21:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
2026-02-12 17:15 ` Christian Loehle
2026-02-12 18:25 ` Andrea Righi
2026-02-05 15:32 [PATCHSET v6] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2026-02-05 15:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
2026-02-04 16:05 [PATCHSET v5] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2026-02-04 16:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
2026-02-01 9:08 [PATCHSET v4 sched_ext/for-6.20] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2026-02-01 9:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
2026-01-26 8:41 [PATCHSET v3 sched_ext/for-6.20] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2026-01-26 8:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
2026-01-27 16:53 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-01-21 12:25 [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-6.20] sched_ext: Fix " Andrea Righi
2026-01-21 12:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/sched_ext: Add test to validate " Andrea Righi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aYpeG8ZUHKizSLAE@gpd4 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=hodgesd@meta.com \
--cc=jpiecuch@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox